The crux of the matter is that science needs to explain how known intelligence began from unintelligent causes known to exist prior to the existence of intelligence.

IDiots, including Gary, want to use unknown intelligence to explain what is known to exist and arise apart from evident intelligence, as well as to explain intelligence itself. Because it's easy to assume that intelligence could do just about anything, and they don't see why they should have to use causes known to exist when the effect occurs.

There is no correspondence between science--or any meaningful efforts for discovery--and any claim that mysterious and unverifiable intelligence caused life and intelligence, as that is merely a simplistic assumption. Science is in the business of matching up known causes with known effects, while IDiots merely model assumed causes as producing any effects they wish.

If you cannot better explain the very basics of molecular and cellular intelligence, then you are unqualified to speak for these areas of science where some knowledge of David Heiserman (and others) is required..

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

If you cannot better explain the very basics of molecular and cellular intelligence, then you are unqualified to speak for these areas of science where some knowledge of David Heiserman (and others) is required..

Gary,

*You* haven't explained anything because (beyond your problems with English) your pathetic hypothesis and meaningless model haven't been tested. You have not made any predictions and tested them using actual biological specimens. The purpose of a computer model is to facilitate the ability to make predictions about *observed* phenomena. That's only the first step, but you have no second step. You've gotten into your car and started it, but you haven't left the parking lot, and you're complaining that no one here is able to understand that you're actually driving around all over the place.

What you have is a VB program that apparently runs as designed, but produces no useful output. You've done something well that wasn't worth doing.

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

Let's see if I'm following this. Professor Zhang made use of some properties of atoms and molecules to construct circuit components (logic gates?) for a computer processor, a good bit smaller than the ones currently in common use.

If that makes those atoms and molecules intelligent, then the use of diodes (is that the right word?) on circuit boards would make diodes intelligent, and the use of transistors in earlier computers would make the transistors intelligent, too. Not to mention the beads on an abacus, or the marks on a slide rule.

One diode, or one transistor, by itself? I see no benefit to applying the word "intelligence" to single components that way. Or even to a single neuron by itself, either.

Another thought here: the properties of atoms and molecules make them act in pretty much the same way in the same situation, or at least with fixed odds for each result if quantum stuff is involved. But one of the aspects of intelligence is that beings possessing it vary their behavior at times, sometimes unpredictably.

Granted, an evolving gene pool does share that one property with known intelligence, along with the property of keep a record of things that worked. Although, it doesn't keep a record of things that didn't work, and should therefore be avoided in the future, nor does it have an effective way of doing a massive rework of a feature that has become inefficient or risky. But that's the gene pool, not the individual organisms and especially not the individual genes or the DNA molecules.

The reality is that I have been explaining the most useful scientific models known to cognitive science, while those on a mission to make sure “evolutionary theory” remains the bedrock of biology have to protest.

At least in intelligence related sciences, another variation of the same old (by now) Avida does not even come close to the work found in the Molecular Intelligence Course from Seoul National University. All together the different topics cover what is needed for the self-learning system that meets all the four requirements for molecular intelligence (as operationally defined by its circuit/algorithm). For it to self-learn there must be like David Heiserman showed, environmental sensors addressing a RAM storing motor actions where hedonic system confidence levels control resulting behavior. Kegg database shows the same sensory into RAM system. There is more or less a “trick to it” that the theory exists to explain. Once self-learning begins, there is a very powerful and controlling force born. It is then no surprise that molecular intelligence was able to keep on going through time, achieved current biodiversity. Without that robustness in the system, I doubt it could be such a survivor.

It's best to accept that theories are simply best explanations of how a process works. In this case needing to include behavioral and intelligent causation events in its complete multi-level model made the Theory of Intelligent Design scientifically possible. And if that sounds too weird to be true, then you must see:

Anywho, science works in mysterious way. There is supposed to be a weird story behind a theory somewhere. So here we are in another crazy moment in time, of science history, the future can look back and laugh at too.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Let's see if I'm following this. Professor Zhang made use of some properties of atoms and molecules to construct circuit components (logic gates?) for a computer processor, a good bit smaller than the ones currently in common use.

If that makes those atoms and molecules intelligent, then the use of diodes (is that the right word?) on circuit boards would make diodes intelligent, and the use of transistors in earlier computers would make the transistors intelligent, too. Not to mention the beads on an abacus, or the marks on a slide rule.

One diode, or one transistor, by itself? I see no benefit to applying the word "intelligence" to single components that way. Or even to a single neuron by itself, either.

Another thought here: the properties of atoms and molecules make them act in pretty much the same way in the same situation, or at least with fixed odds for each result if quantum stuff is involved. But one of the aspects of intelligence is that beings possessing it vary their behavior at times, sometimes unpredictably.

Granted, an evolving gene pool does share that one property with known intelligence, along with the property of keep a record of things that worked. Although, it doesn't keep a record of things that didn't work, and should therefore be avoided in the future, nor does it have an effective way of doing a massive rework of a feature that has become inefficient or risky. But that's the gene pool, not the individual organisms and especially not the individual genes or the DNA molecules.

Henry

I have been talking about information like this with coding ideas that work in the model:

DNA computing is one application where the concept of "molecular intelligence" applies, not the only one.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Let's see if I'm following this. Professor Zhang made use of some properties of atoms and molecules to construct circuit components (logic gates?) for a computer processor, a good bit smaller than the ones currently in common use.

If that makes those atoms and molecules intelligent, then the use of diodes (is that the right word?) on circuit boards would make diodes intelligent, and the use of transistors in earlier computers would make the transistors intelligent, too. Not to mention the beads on an abacus, or the marks on a slide rule.

One diode, or one transistor, by itself? I see no benefit to applying the word "intelligence" to single components that way. Or even to a single neuron by itself, either.

Another thought here: the properties of atoms and molecules make them act in pretty much the same way in the same situation, or at least with fixed odds for each result if quantum stuff is involved. But one of the aspects of intelligence is that beings possessing it vary their behavior at times, sometimes unpredictably.

Granted, an evolving gene pool does share that one property with known intelligence, along with the property of keep a record of things that worked. Although, it doesn't keep a record of things that didn't work, and should therefore be avoided in the future, nor does it have an effective way of doing a massive rework of a feature that has become inefficient or risky. But that's the gene pool, not the individual organisms and especially not the individual genes or the DNA molecules.

Henry

I have been talking about information like this with coding ideas that work in the model:

DNA computing is one application where the concept of "molecular intelligence" applies, not the only one.

All you have been doing is preaching god knows what religion in between shovelling piles of verbal manure.

You do not grasp the basics of what a scientific theory must do or for that matter can do.

That indicates zero education OR learning ability. I suspect the latter.

You do not grasp the basics of logic or fallacy. I suspect due to your beliefs you never will, since people like you are recklessly & pathologically incapable of reason and or willfully & blissfully anti-intellectual.

Your philosophy if you have any is to steal others genuine toil.

Don't worry though, I can't see them wasting their time on you.

Quote mining & cherry picking are the lowest form of disrespect to intellectual honesty.

Let's see if I'm following this. Professor Zhang made use of some properties of atoms and molecules to construct circuit components (logic gates?) for a computer processor, a good bit smaller than the ones currently in common use.

If that makes those atoms and molecules intelligent, then the use of diodes (is that the right word?) on circuit boards would make diodes intelligent, and the use of transistors in earlier computers would make the transistors intelligent, too. Not to mention the beads on an abacus, or the marks on a slide rule.

One diode, or one transistor, by itself? I see no benefit to applying the word "intelligence" to single components that way. Or even to a single neuron by itself, either.

Another thought here: the properties of atoms and molecules make them act in pretty much the same way in the same situation, or at least with fixed odds for each result if quantum stuff is involved. But one of the aspects of intelligence is that beings possessing it vary their behavior at times, sometimes unpredictably.

Granted, an evolving gene pool does share that one property with known intelligence, along with the property of keep a record of things that worked. Although, it doesn't keep a record of things that didn't work, and should therefore be avoided in the future, nor does it have an effective way of doing a massive rework of a feature that has become inefficient or risky. But that's the gene pool, not the individual organisms and especially not the individual genes or the DNA molecules.

Henry

An Ode to the DiodeThe diode is semi-intelligent when conducting its businessIts junctions and layers will bias forward fitness

A switch logical in teams, a pathological doper The electronic Lance Armstrong, but then he's a no hoper.

It repeats the same phase and multiplies when mixing.It turns AC to DC not vice versa, but that needs no fixing.

They're just the cat's whiskers when tuning the bandsMany at once can suck down whole dams.

Molecular Intelligence was a one year program, which is why some of the references and information is now a little dated. But it none the less was a help defining the concept of molecular intelligence, molecular systems which produce intelligence.

Molecular intelligence does not have to be biological, but it certainly has to be intelligent to qualify as intelligence. We are then back to what a system absolutely has to have for it to qualify as intelligent, which was best covered by the robotic work of David Heiserman (and still has not been beat).

Either better explain how intelligence and intelligent cause works, or further prove to be no friend of science.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Molecular Intelligence was a one year program, which is why some of the references and information is now a little dated. But it none the less was a help defining the concept of molecular intelligence, molecular systems which produce intelligence.

Molecular intelligence does not have to be biological, but it certainly has to be intelligent to qualify as intelligence. We are then back to what a system absolutely has to have for it to qualify as intelligent, which was best covered by the robotic work of David Heiserman (and still has not been beat).

Note: Solving a Traveling Salesman Problem is a "programming" challenge, not an indicator of "intelligence".

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Note: Solving a Traveling Salesman Problem is a "programming" challenge, not an indicator of "intelligence".

What, you mean like making virtual critters move towards targets on a monitor screen?

Target?

He's the classic fundy marksman.

Shoots at a barn wall then goes over and draws a bullseye on the hole.

That paper has nothing to do with 'molecular' intelligence or much to do with the TSP.

They are using a GA for small scale analysis of hydrogen bonds in DNA because the TSP looks a bit like the math involved in the bonds.

Something I'm pretty sure Gary doesn't understand.

Gary please explain how the TSP relates to hydrogen bonds.

I was speaking in reference to this argument that began on page 11 where the traveling salesman problem was presented as a good indicator of which model is a more accurate representation of reality (where living things each have their own intelligence):

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,02:22)

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,02:05)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,01:39)

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)

Gary:

Quote

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.

To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of Eureqa. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?

Can you first explain to me why (even where you could) better solving a Traveling Salesman Problem proves that a GA/EA is a better model of intelligence than a cognitive model that has long been used to explain how intelligence works?

Your comparison is identical to one that concludes a pocket calculator (or software) is far more intelligent than a human brain, because it is far superior for solving hard math problems.

Huh?

Look at your claim. In what sense does your model put "EA's (sic) and GA's (sic) to shame"? That's the relevant point. And I need not refer to comparisons to human brains to ask you to support your claim. Recall the question that you offered the quoted statement as an answer to: "Will you describe exactly how the so-called "theory" is "useful", especially "scientifically"?" The claim you put on the table was one of relative utility, not philosophy of cognition.

It appears that my suspicion that you haven't done the work that would ground your claim is spot-on.

I have been claiming that it is a better model of reality where living things (from molecular intelligence on up to human intelligence) have intelligence that make their own choices that over long periods of time can develop into new species.

You are now demanding an unfair comparison so that you can say that your pocket calculator is a superior model of intelligence, while also suggesting that it better explains how intelligent causation works.

And this:

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,23:15)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:02)

Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" works.

And while Gary has time to spew falsehoods about what other people have said, he doesn't have time to do anything towards showing that his program is superior to evolutionary computation in any scientifically productive aspect, nor to show that he has any basis for the claim that his program might "solve" the TSP, thereby demonstrating that P=NP and providing the single greatest advance in computing since Turing thought about what he could do with an infinite paper tape. It's my opinion that Gary doesn't do any of the productive things that he might be doing along the lines of backing up his claims because he either knows he's spewing falsehoods or because he knows that's well outside his capabilities.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Note: Solving a Traveling Salesman Problem is a "programming" challenge, not an indicator of "intelligence".

What, you mean like making virtual critters move towards targets on a monitor screen?

Target?

He's the classic fundy marksman.

Shoots at a barn wall then goes over and draws a bullseye on the hole.

That paper has nothing to do with 'molecular' intelligence or much to do with the TSP.

They are using a GA for small scale analysis of hydrogen bonds in DNA because the TSP looks a bit like the math involved in the bonds.

Something I'm pretty sure Gary doesn't understand.

Gary please explain how the TSP relates to hydrogen bonds.

I was speaking in reference to this argument that began on page 11 where the traveling salesman problem was presented as a good indicator of which model is a more accurate representation of reality (where living things each have their own intelligence):

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,02:22)

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,02:05)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,01:39)

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)

Gary:

Quote

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.

To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of Eureqa. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?

Can you first explain to me why (even where you could) better solving a Traveling Salesman Problem proves that a GA/EA is a better model of intelligence than a cognitive model that has long been used to explain how intelligence works?

Your comparison is identical to one that concludes a pocket calculator (or software) is far more intelligent than a human brain, because it is far superior for solving hard math problems.

Huh?

Look at your claim. In what sense does your model put "EA's (sic) and GA's (sic) to shame"? That's the relevant point. And I need not refer to comparisons to human brains to ask you to support your claim. Recall the question that you offered the quoted statement as an answer to: "Will you describe exactly how the so-called "theory" is "useful", especially "scientifically"?" The claim you put on the table was one of relative utility, not philosophy of cognition.

It appears that my suspicion that you haven't done the work that would ground your claim is spot-on.

I have been claiming that it is a better model of reality where living things (from molecular intelligence on up to human intelligence) have intelligence that make their own choices that over long periods of time can develop into new species.

You are now demanding an unfair comparison so that you can say that your pocket calculator is a superior model of intelligence, while also suggesting that it better explains how intelligent causation works.

And this:

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,23:15)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:02)

Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" works.

And while Gary has time to spew falsehoods about what other people have said, he doesn't have time to do anything towards showing that his program is superior to evolutionary computation in any scientifically productive aspect, nor to show that he has any basis for the claim that his program might "solve" the TSP, thereby demonstrating that P=NP and providing the single greatest advance in computing since Turing thought about what he could do with an infinite paper tape. It's my opinion that Gary doesn't do any of the productive things that he might be doing along the lines of backing up his claims because he either knows he's spewing falsehoods or because he knows that's well outside his capabilities.

We are indeed back at page 11 and Gary didn't learn anything. I think rather than reacting to any further paper he is misrepresenting we should just leave him alone in his dream world.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Note: Solving a Traveling Salesman Problem is a "programming" challenge, not an indicator of "intelligence".

What, you mean like making virtual critters move towards targets on a monitor screen?

Target?

He's the classic fundy marksman.

Shoots at a barn wall then goes over and draws a bullseye on the hole.

That paper has nothing to do with 'molecular' intelligence or much to do with the TSP.

They are using a GA for small scale analysis of hydrogen bonds in DNA because the TSP looks a bit like the math involved in the bonds.

Something I'm pretty sure Gary doesn't understand.

Gary please explain how the TSP relates to hydrogen bonds.

I was speaking in reference to this argument that began on page 11 where the traveling salesman problem was presented as a good indicator of which model is a more accurate representation of reality (where living things each have their own intelligence):

[...]

As usual, Gary gets it wrong. Back on page 11, I asked Gary to substantiate his claim. What claim, you might ask? Let's review:

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,00:48)

Gary:

Quote

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.

To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of Eureqa. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand.

Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better?

The claim was that Gary's work outperforms evolutionary computation approaches. This is a quantitative claim. I asked to see the benchmarks that Gary had indicated that he had already performed in order to come to this conclusion, benchmarks being a necessary prerequisite to even make the claim.

Gary's backtracking seems to be along the lines of saying that his program and evolutionary computation don't address the same concerns, in which case there is no basis to say that anything at all that isn't addressed to the same concern is like "baby-toys".

Gary could clear this up in a moment. If a technology doesn't address the concerns that his program does, then he can just say that it isn't relevant to what he is doing, and retract any false claims that he has made a comparison or even could make a relevant comparison.

On the other hand, if Gary wants to insist that there is some aspect on which his program and evolutionary computation is comparable, he needs to pony up more than an assertion that he has something superior. And it needs to involve more than an assertion that the compared technology isn't aimed at accomplishing Gary's personal mission. That leads to a conclusion that Gary is making a category error, not an informed assessment of capability.

If you cannot better explain the very basics of molecular and cellular intelligence, then you are unqualified to speak for these areas of science where some knowledge of David Heiserman (and others) is required..

Again,

Why should we explain something that we don't think even exists.

"If you can't give me a better explanation for the invisible dragon in my garage, then why should I even listen to you?"

When YOU provide evidence that such things even exist, then we can evaluate the effectiveness of your notions in explaining them. But I don't think that molecular and cellular intelligence exist, unless you change the word "intelligence" to mean "any action as a result of any change in the environment of the thing". Which appears to be what you are doing.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

If you cannot better explain the very basics of molecular and cellular intelligence, then you are unqualified to speak for these areas of science where some knowledge of David Heiserman (and others) is required..

Again,

Why should we explain something that we don't think even exists.

"If you can't give me a better explanation for the invisible dragon in my garage, then why should I even listen to you?"

When YOU provide evidence that such things even exist, then we can evaluate the effectiveness of your notions in explaining them. But I don't think that molecular and cellular intelligence exist, unless you change the word "intelligence" to mean "any action as a result of any change in the environment of the thing". Which appears to be what you are doing.

Understanding this theory makes it much easier to understand the work of scientists who actually study molecular, cellular, algorithmic and electronic intelligence.

If all this is against your religion then you are best to continue to help trash science, for religious gain.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" works.

And while Gary has time to spew falsehoods about what other people have said, he doesn't have time to do anything towards showing that his program is superior to evolutionary computation in any scientifically productive aspect, nor to show that he has any basis for the claim that his program might "solve" the TSP, thereby demonstrating that P=NP and providing the single greatest advance in computing since Turing thought about what he could do with an infinite paper tape. It's my opinion that Gary doesn't do any of the productive things that he might be doing along the lines of backing up his claims because he either knows he's spewing falsehoods or because he knows that's well outside his capabilities.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

What you've *documented* is me commenting on your bizarre mischaracterization of the citric acid cycle. I *quoted* exactly what I was talking about, so I don't see how you can maintain that I hadn't read it.

Quote

and have since proven to have the scientific objectivity of a religious bigot (which do exist in Atheism and similar religions even though they deny being religious).

You really don't know much about me, do you? Or about science, where asking pointed questions about substantiation of claims is simply part of the program.

Quote

Why not explain why you threw this statement in my face?

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 23 2012,18:44)

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,23:15)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:02)

Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" works.

And while Gary has time to spew falsehoods about what other people have said, he doesn't have time to do anything towards showing that his program is superior to evolutionary computation in any scientifically productive aspect, nor to show that he has any basis for the claim that his program might "solve" the TSP, thereby demonstrating that P=NP and providing the single greatest advance in computing since Turing thought about what he could do with an infinite paper tape. It's my opinion that Gary doesn't do any of the productive things that he might be doing along the lines of backing up his claims because he either knows he's spewing falsehoods or because he knows that's well outside his capabilities.

Because you made a claim about your work with no support for it. That seems a perfectly adequate reason to ask for substantiation.

Quote

Quote

And where is your evidence that the following university level scientific evidence and what I said here in reference to cellular intelligence are all false?

I never said that your *sources* were false. Nor do I have any problem with science dealing with instances of "ordinary design", as I have stated many, many times to you.

I honestly know a pompous blow-hard when I see one. Your deceptive methods of unfairly discrediting others is now a serious ethical concern for all whom you appointed yourself to (mis)represent.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Let me stop you there, Gary. There's ample evidence in this thread you don't do much honestly. Go back to the start of this thread. Count the number of times you've been dishonest. Do the same for Wes. Have a look in the mirror and have a word with yourself.

Someone with an avatar showing a baseball cap that says “TARD” who has been helping to hurl bigoted insults is no help to Wesley right now. But thanks for chiming in with your support for their tactics.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I honestly know a pompous blow-hard when I see one. Your deceptive methods of unfairly discrediting others is now a serious ethical concern for all whom you appointed yourself to (mis)represent.

Gary, are you hoping that I'll get all flustered and forget that you haven't ponied up the basis for your claims? I consider the source on stuff like you just said.

Let's get back to your incredible claims about evolutionary computation. Here's a reminder from up-thread a bit:

The claim was that Gary's work outperforms evolutionary computation approaches. This is a quantitative claim. I asked to see the benchmarks that Gary had indicated that he had already performed in order to come to this conclusion, benchmarks being a necessary prerequisite to even make the claim.

Gary's backtracking seems to be along the lines of saying that his program and evolutionary computation don't address the same concerns, in which case there is no basis to say that anything at all that isn't addressed to the same concern is like "baby-toys".

Gary could clear this up in a moment. If a technology doesn't address the concerns that his program does, then he can just say that it isn't relevant to what he is doing, and retract any false claims that he has made a comparison or even could make a relevant comparison.

On the other hand, if Gary wants to insist that there is some aspect on which his program and evolutionary computation is comparable, he needs to pony up more than an assertion that he has something superior. And it needs to involve more than an assertion that the compared technology isn't aimed at accomplishing Gary's personal mission. That leads to a conclusion that Gary is making a category error, not an informed assessment of capability.

I only want to see your better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause".

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Someone with an avatar showing a baseball cap that says “TARD” who has been helping to hurl bigoted insults is no help to Wesley right now. But thanks for chiming in with your support for their tactics.

TARD is an acronym for "The Argument Regarding Design", Gary. It is interesting that you engage in Ad hominem rather than go back and count the instances ofr your dishonest (instead of falsy accusing others). So try again, Gary, who thinks he has a paradigm-changing 'theory' of intelligence based on some VB script liked by 4 people.